Recent petitions accused Thomas Guy of being involved in slave-trading because of his investments in South Sea Company stocks by the end of his life and justified it as a reason to remove his statues from Guy's Hospital as well as renaming KCL Guy's campus. We are petitioning against such propositions. First, because this is a form of anachronical prejudice called presentism, and second because we do not recognize these accusations as historically correct.

The Oxford dictionary defines "presentism" as the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. That is, to see the past with the lens of the present. In this particular context, there is an inherent problem in assigning the adjective "racist" to Thomas Guy: it is a historical prejudice because it ignores the historical and cultural aspects of the society in which he lived and which may have affected his way of perceiving the world. Would Thomas Guy be racist, if he was alive today and received modern education? Should all the people from the past be erased from history because of their ignorance and bias?

Sir Isaac Newton was also a shareholder of the South Sea Company. John Locke held shares of the Royal African Company, which was also involved in the slave trade. It is vital to recognize their unfortunate opinions. But their importance shall not be dismissed because of their social biases. We cannot remove the Principia Mathematica from libraries because Sir Isaac Newton owned stocks of the South Sea Company. Figures of the past must be remembered both for their triumphs and their misdoings.

The statue of Thomas Guy and the naming of the KCL campus as "Guy's Campus" is not to celebrate racism. It is to celebrate one of the greatest acts of philanthropy in history. And to acknowledge Thomas Guy's importance in funding and financing the campus and the hospital.

Lastly, there is the point regarding the potential inaccuracy in relating Thomas Guy to slave trading because of his shares on the South Sea Company.

The first historical inaccuracy is that Thomas Guy already held a fortune of at least £54,040 (equivalent to roughly £85 million today) before his profits through the South Sea Company. A wealth which he obtained by selling bibles and making loans to businesses.

The second historical inaccuracy is the failure to conceive that the South Sea Company had the primary function of holding British Government Debt. What this means is that all investors who held Government debt had to exchange this debt to South Sea Company stocks through a debt-for-equity swap in 1711 (the date of funding of the company).

Finally, the profits consolidated by Thomas Guy with the South Sea Company were not related to slave trading, but rather to selling the overpriced stocks during the South Sea Bubble of 1720. What this indicates is that it is more sensible to claim that Thomas Guy earned his fortune first because of his successful business and second because of speculation on the stock market, rather than because of slave trading.

To summarize, while racial movements are a vital aspect of the 21st-century society, it is essential to guarantee that the said movements retain their legitimacy both by avoiding anachronical prejudice (i.e., presentism) and by ensuring that people do not suffer unjust accusations. Because of this, we request that the statues of Thomas Guy not be removed from the KCL campus and that the campus' name is not changed.

Sources:

Regarding Thomas Guy’s profits with the South Sea Company bubble:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0005576X.1938.11750464?journalCode=ybaq20

Regarding Thomas Guy’s life, investments, and philanthropy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3072263/

Regarding the purpose of the South Sea Company and the conversion of national debt into equity:

https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/ssb/history.html​

http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2006/05/rafferty.html

Regarding John Locke:

https://www.npg.org.uk/learning/digital/history/abolition-of-slavery/john-locke

Regarding Newton:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0018